Civil asset forfeiture is something that doesn't get discussed nearly enough. It allows the government to seize property and money without ever charging a person with a crime, or -- in this case -- seize property in a way that seems excessive to the alleged crime.
This is 82-year-old pilot Ken Jouppi. Alaska seized his $95,000 plane—and he's spent *13 years* trying to get it back.
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
Why? Because a passenger once brought a 6-pack of beer on his flight.
Now he has one last hope. A thread. pic.twitter.com/urezdIYRSw
The thread continues:
In 2012, Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger from Fairbanks, Alaska, to the remote village of Beaver—which is dry.
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
That passenger bought beer for her husband. (The horror!)
What she didn't realize is that state troopers were watching. /2
Of course they were.
Police raided Jouppi's plane before takeoff & found his passenger's Budweiser. It wasn't his—but he was still convicted of a bootlegging charge (a misdemeanor).
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
He got 3 days in jail & a hefty fine.
But prosecutors wanted more: his $95,000 plane. /3
This is malicious prosecution.
So Alaska used asset forfeiture to seize his aircraft. And prosecutors have spent more than a decade trying to keep it forever.
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
This year, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the seizure was *not* an excessive fine.
I repeat: A $95,000 plane. Over a 6-pack of beer. /4
A six-pack of BUDWISER. Bad taste in beer isn't a crime.
Jouppi isn’t the first to face this nightmare.
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
In Indiana, prosecutors seized Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover over a drug crime & spent *8 years* trying to keep it—a reminder that asset forfeiture enriches the government more than it fights crime.
Timbs' saga is important. In 2019.../5
Just crazy.
...his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. There, Indiana argued it should be able to seize someone's car for going 5 mph over the speed limit. Five miles per hour!
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
That is not parody. And it shows how far government actors will go to legally rob citizens. That's bleak. /6
Very bleak.
SCOTUS rejected Indiana’s argument & sent the case back to Indiana court. But prosecutors weren't done.
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
Back home, they argued they should effectively be able to take everything you own if you commit a drug crime.
Your house. Your car. Your savings. /7 https://t.co/Tkk2K4xVMm
Yikes.
In 2021, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that taking Timbs' car was an excessive fine. Eight years post-seizure, he'd finally get to keep his vehicle—once & for all.
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
The chief justice compared the state's effort to "Captain Ahab's chase of the white whale." Fitting. /8
An apt metaphor.
So what does this mean for Jouppi, the man who lost his $95,000 plane?
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 3, 2025
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled the seizure wasn't "excessive," claiming a 6-pack of beer can cause "grave societal harm." Ludicrous.
So he's now asking SCOTUS: What counts as an excessive fine? /9
Things are more expensive in Alaska, and a quick Google search showed the cost of that beer was likely between $12 and $16. That means the fine was 7,000 times more than the cost of the beer.
Seems a bit excessive to us.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled it’s not “excessive” to seize a $95,000 plane…over a 6-pack of beer. Asset forfeiture in action.
— Billy Binion (@billybinion) September 5, 2025
Imagine losing your livelihood over a grocery bag. That’s where we’re at. https://t.co/7LkpqZrkGe
This is a big problem.
The Supreme Court has said that there’s no inherent ratio where a fine or a punitive damage in a civil suit becomes excessive
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) September 5, 2025
But I believe they have said that anything more than 10 times the value of the alleged harm “raises a judicial eyebrow” https://t.co/zuBLLoRbee
Here's hoping this raises judicial eyebrows at SCOTUS.